Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)
Minutes 2/02/06
Present
R. Vaters-Carr, G. Kowalczyk, F. Sansone, D. Weiss, R. Glinka, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, A. Abugri, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, N. Henderson, M. Shea, C. Coron, D. Marino, M. Fede, E. Schmidt, E. West, N. Chrissidis, J. Fields, R. Mugno, C. Dellinger-Pate, J. Goralski, M. Moss, D. Flynn, K. Gatzke, C. Weed, C. Novosad, R. Hunter, M. Kiarie, T. Lin, J. Mielczarski, J. Tait, N. Bobrek, W. Shyam, K. Laing, K. Mauro, M. Heidmann
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m.
II. Announcements
Mark Heidmann announced that the Writing Support Committee had held a successful two-day workshop on teaching with writing. The workshop was well-attended, and there was even a waiting-list of faculty who wanted to participate. They will make every effort to have another workshop, probably mid- to late-August. In addition, The Writing Support Committee and WACC are discussing the possibility of offering a workshop (or part of a workshop) focused on the L- to W-course transition. Ken Gatzke asked if there was a place in these workshops for adjuncts, noting the part-timers do teach L-courses in his department. Mark said that all faculty, including full- and part-time undergraduate and graduate faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants, are welcome and encouraged to attend.
We welcomed Clyde Weed from Political Science as a new member of UCF.
III. Chair's Report
The chair announced the following:
The UCF handled a total of 56 course proposals during the Fall semester, a job well done.
Over the intersession, the chair only issued one override - ILS 495 did not exist, and an honor's student needed to take it this semester.
In order to clarify faculty workload the administration would like to differentiate Honors theses from independent studies. Currently a student takes XXX495 to develop a prospectus for an Honors thesis and then takes XXX499 to complete the actual research. Since faculty receive different load credit for supervising theses as opposed to independent studies, this is problematic. A proposed solution is to use the one 400-level course that is currently not used by any departments (which happens to be 459) for Honors theses.
The chair has invited John Mattia (who oversees the undergraduate catalogue production) to attend a UCF meeting (one of the next two), to discuss some of the problems that have come up in the past and new directions we should take.
Here are some possibilities for new business:
We still need to develop "bylaws", which are referenced in the constitution, for our subcommittees
Is this new UCF venue acceptable to everyone?
Dr. Ellen Beatty has suggested that placing a time limit on the approval of new courses, or developing some other method of ensuring that course outlines get revisited periodically, would be a good idea.
The L- to W-course transition
Dr. Williams had wanted to attend a UCF meeting to make a case for UCF taking a leadership position in programmatic assessment. Perhaps we can begin discussing this until he is able to visit us.
IV. Approval of Minutes of 12/15/05
The minutes from 12/15/05 were approved, with five abstentions.
Thanks to Tricia Lin for taking the minutes.
V. Approval of standing committee minutes of 1/26/06
Notifications Management(NMC)
NMC minutes of 1/26/06 were accepted.
The following block motion was presented:
Revised course PCH 359: Environmental Health be approved
Revised course PCH 365: Illness and Disease be approved
Revised course CSC 212: Date Structures be approved
Revised course CSC 341: Digital Imaging be approved
New course JRN 270: Intro to Photojournalism be approved
New course JR 400: Investigative Journalism be approved
New course CSC 204: Web Technology be approved
New course CSC 206: Web Scripting be approved
New course CSC 207: Computer Systems be approved
New course CSC 209: Web Design be approved
New course CSC 310: Multimedia Systems be approved
New course CSC 321: Algorithm Design and Analysis be approved
New course 334: Human Computer Interactions be approved.
The motion passed with two abstentions.
New Programs and Innovations (NPIC)
NPIC minutes from 1/26/06 were accepted.
Program Review and Assessment (PRAC)
PRAC minutes from 1/26/06 were accepted.
PRAC series of assessment workshops continues this semester with an already planned session for March 8, and negotiation for a second one.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WACC)
No report
University-Wide Impact Committee (UWIC)
UWIC minutes of 1/26/06 were accepted.
UWIC has been uncovering documents related to standards for All-University-Requirements (AURs). They have been trying to determine which documents are binding and have come to the following conclusions:
The undergraduate catalog is legally binding
The 1996 Strategic Plan was rejected, so it is not binding
The 1994 SURGER report was approved by UCIC but was never implemented, so it is not binding. In other words, only goals were approved, and standards were not developed.
The Gen Ed Task Force's job has not, as of yet, moved to the implementation phase of the goals outlined in the document, "The Liberal Education Program."
The 1993 All-University Requirements document is binding.
UWIC presented the following motion:
"All evidence available to UWIC shows that the 1983 SCSU All-University Requirements document is the only binding document regarding All-University Requirements. Therefore, UWIC moves to bring back its motion that was tabled by the UCF on December 15, 2005."
That motion is the following: "UCF approves the inclusion of the 1983 'All-University Requirements' document in the new "Standards for Undergraduate Curriculum Proposals," and that this document indicate that new AUR proposals include an academic rationale that is informed by the 1983 'All-University Requirements' documents."
Discussion ensued about the role of the Ad Hoc Standards Committee, who are currently assessing and drafting a "Standards for Undergraduate Curriculum Proposals" Document. It was agreed that this document is currently the only binding standards document, but some members believed that the ad hoc committee should have the power to review this document and determine the ways in which it relates to the new Standards document they are drafting.
In light of this, a substitute motion was presented, seconded, and accepted:
- "UCF agrees that the 1983 All-University Requirement (AUR) document is the binding document for AUR standards"
The motion was approved with one abstention.
VII. Old Business
We began a discussion of the motion regarding the School Curriculum Committees' (SCC's) role in reviewing curricular approvals, which was tabled at the 12/15/05 UCF meeting.
The tabled motion reads, "In the review of curricular proposals, SCCs shall abide by published UCF standards and guidelines. These standards are considered to be a core set of minimal requirements for curricular proposals, and no subtractions from them are acceptable. If, by faculty referendum, a school approves additions to the above, the UCF will be responsible for publishing these additional standards and guidelines. The SCCs will be responsible for ensuring that curricular proposals meet these additional requirements."
1. Mark Heidmann offered a brief history of the issue to new members and then noted that this issue seems to revolve around this question: Is it wise to for the UCF to give away its power?
He pointed out that the current motion indicates we are in support of SCC's adding additional requirements, if they are supported by faculty referendum. The other possibility, not in the current motion, is for the UCF to retain its power by allowing the SCCs to propose additional requirements to the UCF, which has the power to approve or deny the proposals. Joe Manzella pointed out that this option (requiring UCF approval) seems to give more validity to any standards adopted by the SCCs precisely because they will have to have earned UCF approval. Others pointed out that the faculty referendum, present in the current motion, works as its own approval process, its own protection.
It was pointed out that this issue originally developed when an SCC had imposed an additional standard, the requirement of outcomes-based language in course proposals. Faculty members in that school did not feel they should be held to a standard not present in the UCF standards
Elena Schmitt discussed how this raises a question about who controls the SCCs - the faculty of the school or the Deans. It was noted that faculty used to be elected to SCCs, but that the process seems to have changed, and faculty are now appointed by the Deans. This raises a concern that we might want to discuss further. Why are faculty members no longer elected to the SCCs?
Debbie Weiss also noted, recalling an issue that has been an important part of our discussion on this matter, that there didn't seem to be any occasion for an entire School to impose a standard (in addition to UCF standards) on its curriculum. She said it seemed only departments need that power, not Schools.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Minutes recorded by Nicole Henderson, Secretary for UCF
